CEDH · PRESS;GCREFERRALS;ENG — 30 novembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   861 30.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CASES ACCEPTED FOR REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER   The following cases have been referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights:   Gorou v. Greece (No. 2) (application no. 12686/03); Šilih v. Slovenia (no. 71463/01); Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (14939/03).   Judgments in a further 43 cases, listed at the end of the press release, are now final [1] , after requests for them to be referred to the Court’s Grand Chamber were rejected. The Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided on the referral requests under Article 43 [2] of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The text of the Chamber judgment and corresponding press release in each case are available on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.echr.coe.int.     1. Cases accepted by the Grand Chamber   Gorou v. Greece (No. 2) The applicant, Anthi Gorou, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Brussels. She is a civil servant employed by the Ministry of Education. In 1998 she lodged a complaint and a civil claim against her hierarchical superior, alleging perjury and defamation.   The applicant complains that insufficient reasons have been given for the decision rejecting her application for leave to appeal on points of law in September 2002. In addition, she complains of the length of the proceedings. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   In a judgment of 14 June 2007, the Court held by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the allegation that the proceedings had been unfair, and unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of the proceedings, namely more than four years and three months at one level of jurisdiction.   On 14 September, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   Šilih v. Slovenia The applicants, Franja and Ivan Šilih, are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1940 respectively and live in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia).   On 3   May   1993, the applicants’ son, Gregor Šilih, aged 20, went to Slovenj Gradec General Hospital complaining of nausea and itching skin.   On the basis of a diagnosis of urticaria (a type of allergic reaction), M.E. ordered the administration of intravenous injections of a drug containing glucocorticosteroid (Dexamethason) and an antihistaminic (Synopen). Following the injections, Gregor Šilih's condition significantly deteriorated, probably indicating that he was allergic to one or both of the drugs. A diagnosis of anaphylactic shock was made. He was transferred to intensive care, where he stopped breathing. He was given cardiopulmonary resuscitation and then connected to a respirator. His blood pressure and pulse returned to normal, but he remained in a coma with severe brain damage. He was transferred to Ljubljana Clinical Centre, where he died on 19   May   1993.   On 13 May 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against M.E. for medical negligence, which was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. On 1 August 1994 they lodged a request for the opening of a criminal investigation against M.E which was ultimately unsuccessful.   In July 1995 the applicants also brought civil proceedings against Slovenj Gradec General Hospital and M.E.   The applicants obtained a medical opinion that myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), considered to be a contributory factor in Gregor Šilih’s death, could have occurred when he was in anaphylactic shock or even later. As a result, on 30 November 1995, they lodged a request to reopen a criminal investigation Their request was granted and, in the course of the investigation, a forensic expert stated that the administration of antihistaminic had led to Gregor Šilih’s allergic reaction. He expressed doubts as to the pre-existence of myocarditis.   On 28 February 1997 the applicants lodged an indictment against M.E. for the criminal offence of “causing death by negligence” but were directed to request additional investigative measures. Several witnesses were examined and a forensic expert concluded that the reason for Gregor Šilih’s death was rather uncertain. The investigation was closed on 3 May 2000.   In August 2000 the applicants complained to the Judicial Council about the length of the criminal proceedings and requested that certain judges involved in the case stand down. Their request was rejected.   The criminal proceedings were discontinued on 18   October   2000 on the ground of insufficient evidence. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully. The applicants also lodged an unsuccessful constitutional appeal and a criminal complaint.   On 25   August   2006 the applicants’ civil claim was rejected, more than 11 years after the proceedings were instituted. The case is currently pending on appeal.   The applicants allege that their son died as a result of medical negligence and complained about the inefficiency of the Slovenian judicial system in establishing liability for his death. They further complain about the length of the legal proceedings and allege that the criminal proceedings were unfair. They rely, in particular, on Articles 2, 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   In a judgment of 28 June 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the lack of effective legal proceedings to establish the cause of and responsibility for the death of the applicants’ son in hospital.   On 27 September 2007, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia The applicant, Sergey Aleksandrovich Zolotukhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Voronezh (Russia).   The case concerned proceedings against Mr Zolotukhin for disorderly conduct in 2002.   Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr   Zolotukhin complains that, after he had already served three days’ detention for committing disorderly acts, he had been re-detained and tried again for the same offence.   In a judgment of 7 June 2007, the Court found that the applicant had been tried and prosecuted twice concerning an offence for which he had already been convicted and served a term of detention and, accordingly, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7.   On 5 September 2007, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.     2. Cases rejected by the Grand Chamber   Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 67189/01), judgment of 24 May 2007.   Riihikallio and Others v. Finland (no. 25072/02), judgment of 31 May 2007.   Dupuis and Others v. France (no. 1914/02), judgment of 7 June 2007. Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France (no. 71111/01), judgment of 14 June 2007.   Leonidopoulos v. Greece (no. 17930/05), judgment of 31 May 2007. Peca v. Greece (no. 14846/05), judgment of 21 June 2007. Thomas Makris v. Greece (no. 23009/05), judgment of 21 June 2007.   Bakonyi v. Hungary (no. 45311/05), judgment of 3 May 2007. Hélioplán   Kft. v. Hungary (no. 30077/03), judgment of 3 May 2007.   G. M. v. Italy (no. 56293/00), judgment of 5 July2007. Gallucci v. Italy (no. 10756/02), judgment of 12 June 2007. Gregori v. Italy (no. 62265/00), judgment of 5 July 2007. Paudicio v. Italy (no. 77606/01), judgment of 24 May 2007. Pititto v. Italy (no. 19321/03), judgment of 12 June 2007.   Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02), judgment of 7 June 2007.   Gładczak v. Poland (no. 14255/02), judgment of 31 May 2007.   Sociedade Agrícola Herdade da Palma S. A. v. Portugal (no. 31677/04), judgment of 10 July 2007.   Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 40464/02), judgment of 10 May 2007. Ayrapetyan v. Russia (no. 21198/05), judgment of 14 June 2007. Gorodnichev v. Russia (no. 52058/99), judgment of 24 May 2007. Kovalev v. Russia (no. 78145/01), judgment of 10 May 2007. Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 67579/01), judgment of 7 June 2007. Mikadze v. Russia (no. 52697/99), judgment of 7 June 2007. Mishketkul and Others v. Russia (no. 36911/02), judgment of 24 May 2007. OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v. Russia (no. 1641/02), judgment of 7 June 2007. OOO PTK «   Merkuriy   » v. Russia (no. 3790/05), judgment of 14 June 2007. Radchikov v. Russia (no. 65582/01), judgment of 24 May 2007. Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 64140/00), judgment of 19 July 2007. Smirnov v. Russia (no. 71362/01), judgment of 7 June 2007. Solovyev v. Russia (no. 2708/02), judgment of 24 May 2007. Tuleshov and Others v. Russia (no. 32718/02), judgment of 24 May 2007.   Macko and Kozubal v. Slovakia (n os 64054/00 and 64071/00), judgment of 19 June 2007.   Murillo Espinosa v. Spain (no. 37938/03), judgment of 7 June 2007. Salt Hiper, S.A. v. Spain (no. 25779/03), judgment of 7 June 2007.   Dika v. «   The former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia   » (no. 13270/02) judgment of 31 May 2007.   Amato v. Turkey (no. 58771/00), judgment of 3 May 2007. Atici v. Turkey (no. 19735/02), judgment of 10 May 2007. Hürriy and Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 17721/02), judgment of 5 June 2007. Inci (Nasiroğlu) v. Turkey (no. 69911/01), judgment of 14 June 2007. Kansiz v. Turkey (no. 74433/01), judgment of 22 May 2007. Kizir and Others v. Turkey (no. 117/02), judgment of 26 June 2007. Yeşil and Sevim v. Turkey (no. 34738/04), judgment of 5 June 2007.   Lysenko v. Ukraine (no. 18219/02), judgment of 7 June 2007. Sova v. Ukraine (no. 36678/03), judgment of 21 June 2007.     ***   Further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [3]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the judgment of a Chamber shall become final when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43. [2] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.